Goose Creek study planned; rain-garden project and $73,250 in change orders trigger procurement review

The public works committee advanced two related items on July 15: (1) a recommendation to contract Remington Verwick for a Goose Creek flood study (committee vote 3–0) and to hold a public open house on Aug. 5, 2025 to present a proposed pollution-reduction plan; and (2) lengthy council debate over a completed rain-garden and stormwater project at the Public Works facility and Matlack Street, where change orders increased the final construction total well above the original contract and raised questions about planning, engineering and purchasing oversight.

Study and open-house: The proposed Goose Creek study covers the channel from Route 202 upstream toward the borough’s Public Works site and was described at the meeting as covering multiple municipal jurisdictions. The committee recommended a $38,500 contract to Remington Verwick and scheduled a public open house for Aug. 5, 2025 at Borough Hall (the time was adjusted in the meeting record to 5:00 p.m.). Council asked staff to contact neighboring municipalities (West Goshen and others named in the discussion) about possible cost-sharing because the watershed traverses multiple townships.

Rain-garden project and change orders: Council spent significant time on final certification of payment for a grant-funded Matlack Street / Goose Creek green infrastructure project. According to staff statements presented at the meeting, the original construction purchase order or contract (recorded in discussion as about $246,000) was increased by a series of change orders that together total approximately $73,250 — about 27–30% above the original contract — bringing the construction total to roughly $320,000. Staff said two grants together cover approximately $318,500 of construction cost; if reimbursements are approved the borough’s net construction out-of-pocket would be small (staff estimated roughly $1,500), but engineering and related project costs paid outside of construction remain and were discussed separately.

Finance Director Barb (present) said she halted ACH payment on the final certification after finding the cumulative change orders would push the project above the borough’s 10% purchasing threshold; she told council she flagged the invoices for review and that the payment will not be approved without council direction. The meeting record contains multiple council members’ criticisms of the planning and design process: planners and engineers were urged to attend committee meetings and to perform appropriate geotechnical or core sampling before construction where subsurface uncertainty exists. Several council members also recommended pushing the award back to committee, seeking participation or reimbursement from downstream municipalities, and expanding bidding/competition for future phases. One councilor suggested that the engineer (Pennoni) be reviewed for whether soil sampling or additional site inspection should have been included in the design scope.

Council did not approve final payment at the meeting and moved the item to the discussion agenda for the next meeting. Staff and council directed follow-up actions: reach out to neighboring municipalities about shared responsibility for the watershed study, consider reopening bidding or getting additional proposals for the flood study, and ensure project engineers and project managers attend future public works committee meetings to provide more prompt updates.